The definition of â€˜Masculinityâ€™ or â€˜Femininityâ€™ (of oneself) should come from the respective gender one belongs to. A woman cannot â€˜teachâ€™ a boy to become a man, anymore than a man can teach a girl to become a woman. (ie. Richâ€™s statement of men not teaching boys anymore holds true to a very large degree today.). When men listen to women to define their worth (ie. The 90â€™s, when women said they wanted a â€˜Sensitive New Age Guyâ€™.) â€“ men obliged, and women complained even more.

Talking â€˜philosophicallyâ€™ about ideas is fine â€“ but a grasp of reality and the way each sex tends to choose to live is paramount.

Saying that â€˜Women are equal to menâ€™ is just politeness. Itâ€™s a concession to politically-correct rules. It has little to do with reason. Men (as opposed to males) generally have a secure notion of who they are. Men who base their thinking (rather than feeling) without the approval of the â€˜womanâ€™ are being more honest with themselves as far as I can see.

Feminism is a spolit rich child. It acts tough, then hides behind its vagina.

One of the most important points in the podcast that summed up my shared thinking is the notion of RESPONSIBILITY.

The reason Iâ€™m so tired of feminists and our socio-political culture of â€˜womanâ€™ is that is avoids the notion of responsibility when it comes to women.

If women want to â€˜changeâ€™ their beliefs â€“ fine. Be what you want.But I wish theyâ€™d stop complaining that the world doesnâ€™t change with them.

Oneâ€™s own personal experiences only serve to pronounce some of these issues.

Relationships today are really one-sided. If a male wants to be with a woman (by-&-large) it MUST be on her terms, otherwise he knows he really hasnâ€™t much of a chance. Sheâ€™s the one to say â€˜yesâ€™ or â€˜noâ€™. She has the final say. Thatâ€™s another reason for men agreeing with feminist ideas. â€œYes dearâ€ seems to be the prevailing â€˜Memeâ€™ of males today. They want keep the women in their lives happy. They want the women around them to continue to say â€˜yesâ€™ to them.

The concept of feminism and the modern woman is so â€˜self-centeredâ€™ (at the exclusion of all else) that its understandable to see the bitterness in the air. The modern â€˜womanâ€™ has modeled herself into something which men are finding increasingly 1-dimensional and childish. What man could seriously look at one of these (as Sue put it) â€˜childrenâ€™, and see a responsible mother? The â€˜meâ€™ focus to most of womenâ€™s thinking (feeling?) is pronounced in the sciences where women are almost non-existent. Women cannot see much worth in things if it is not DIRECTLY related to an immediate (usually material) gain.

A woman can see no point in mathematics, unless sheâ€™s part of the equation.

Or as Camille Paglia said: â€œThere will never be a female Einstien, because there will never be a female Jack the Ripper.â€

The pronouncements that modern women voice that men are â€˜afraidâ€™ a STRONG, INDEPENDENT woman is laughable. Men are not â€˜afraidâ€™. Weâ€™re â€˜tiredâ€™. Tired of bending over backwards to give women everything they want, just so we might be worthy of them, but never getting there. And as time passes, it seems like the approval is a hoax.

In todayâ€™s feminist culture, for men fortunate enough to avoid marriage/children until their 30s/40s (when their sex drive starts to decline) and they can start to think WITHOUT their penis, it becomes evident that most women of similar age are panicking. Their control is diluting. But itâ€™s too late for many women by then. Many men donâ€™t want them any longer. They want a younger girl who treats them better, and no amount of propaganda (or Viagra) will make men want them (in menâ€™s eyes).

I, for one, have no interest in being the â€˜Princeâ€™ to some used-up party favour.

Put it this way: If Iâ€™m in my 30s/40s, and sheâ€™s similar, but refuses to cook, clean, (her looks fading), & cant conceive any longer â€“ then WHAT exactly is the attraction? Just sex? â€¦ well (for the shallow) â€“ pretty much. And a lot of older women (who believed in feminist memes) are finding that sad fact out.

(A quote from an author I forget):â€œOf what use is independence to a woman, if in the end she is all alone?â€

I say this not to debase or upset â€“ but to stop the continuing avoidance of responsibility from women who â€˜feelâ€™ themselves far from danger simply because they are young and pretty. The more upsettling thing is, the older feminists donâ€™t teach the young girls to avoid their mistakes. No. They make them as angry (at men) as they are.

It just continues.

A man will never be free (to be a man) until he no longer cares what women think of him.

On the idea Sue presented about women's natural tendency to squish out the masculine: I believe this to be a safety mechanism on woman's part. In the past when females were dependent on men for survival, they needed to develop a way to test a man's level of consciousness without him knowing. She knew her pussy was delicious and could not trust him to be honest with her, so her femininity devoloped so that men with weak consciousness/poorer survival skills would get sucked into her world and be dominated by her. Men with greater consciousness could remain more independent of her manipulation and were able to use better logic in the wild, and were more desirable as a result.

These tests still happen non-stop in every single male-female interaction. Feminism is ultimately just another outgrowth of this mechanism. Did you fall for it? Only when men become aware of these tests can they gain a strong degree of independence from her feminine world.

Bobby_N wrote:A man will never be free (to be a man) until he no longer cares what women think of him.

Or what anyone else thinks of them. Well, you can care; but don't make that your ultimate authority.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:It really depends on if you want to go all the way with your conscious individuality or not. The spiritual life is so demanding that is only reserved for the insanely courageous, as so long as you are bound to â€˜womanâ€™ you are still of the world.

The same is true for a woman bound to a man, or whatever else.

skipair wrote:This is the mindset where her orgasms, cum sucking, and true love and passion is ignited...by the guy who is here one minute and gone the next. It is her emotionally bonding to him, but not also he to her that makes the cum drinking a pleasure. Interesting female psychology, imo.

That's true. She gets upset because part of her wants to hold on to you, but the part that's turned on by the passion doesn't. During the passion, there's no need to hold on. It's ever-present, in a sense. And she admires you for being you without reservation, even if she won't admit it openly.

Bobby_N wrote:Put it this way: If Iâ€™m in my 30s/40s, and sheâ€™s similar, but refuses to cook, clean, (her looks fading), & cant conceive any longer â€“ then WHAT exactly is the attraction? Just sex? â€¦ well (for the shallow) â€“ pretty much. And a lot of older women (who believed in feminist memes) are finding that sad fact out.

Yes, the feminist movement unfortunately masculinizes a woman's role in society to have her believe that she doesn't need to rely on a man for anything. She can do everything he can do. Meanwhile they experience unfulfilling relationships with men in their denial of their natural feminine energy. I believe this to be one of the major causes of depression, anxiety, and the rise in prescription medication. Its like asking a child to take responsibility for getting a good job, supplying mortgage payments, and paying taxes. Yet they take this extremely uncharacteristic role anyway because men actually/finally gave it the O.K. Men created this fuck up, and the ball remains in their court to change it.

Priority #1: Don't take feminism seriously from women. Pretend you don't understand ("I never understood much about politics"), change the subject ("Want something to eat?"), and softly lead her into something YOU want to do ("I want a burger, lets go to the diner"). This sends the right message.

Bobby_N wrote:A man will never be free (to be a man) until he no longer cares what women think of him.

Or what anyone else thinks of them. Well, you can care; but don't make that your ultimate authority.

Yes, your right. - though that was the my implication. Don't be a slave.

skipair wrote: Yet they take this extremely uncharacteristic role anyway because men actually/finally gave it the O.K. Men created this fuck up, and the ball remains in their court to change it.

You have to be kidding.How much responsibility do women have to avoid?How many concessions? How many 'batting' of the eyelids when they revert to their girly selves will it take to realise that they need to grow up. That they need to start being the type of level-headed female that men would consider as wives & mothers.

While men need to take their initial share of responsibility for giving feminists the 'inch', that they made a 'mile' (read: "Maybe if I give her this she'll be happy" - or "yes dear") - I can't see feminism as men's fuckup. Men agreed to the initial (well-meaning) concept of 'choice' & an 'equal playing field' (ie. everyone gets to try) - but men certainly didn't initially agree to things like affirmative action, quotas, and the total feminisation of our culture, while making masculinity a dirty word.

I think the only sensible (& productive) way men can contribute to this mess is to walk away and/or voice their ideas on these issues when they arise instead of saying "Yes Dear".

I think the ball is definitely in women's court now.

Men are seen as oafs, fools, rapists and buffoons in the popular culture/media. Any opinion other than capitulation to feminist memes gets one labelled as a misogynist.

No...

While I'm sure most men would love to rescue women (again) from something, the ball is definitely in women's court on this one. Put another way - they need to start looking at the reflection in that mirror they so often point to.

Dan Rowden wrote: Like I said, it's not just feminism and its aspects you're questioning - its the basic fabric of society itself. People tend to be kind of attached to that. Of course, one might say they simply disagree with you on how society should be and feel it inappropriate to associate with you. You'll have to suck that up I'm afraid. It's one of the natural consequences of taking a principled stand - especially one that goes against the social grain.

There's no difference with a social network like the Internet. From one perceptive it's a mishmash of wiring and computing and from another perspective it's not different from society: its cohesion and success has become based on addiction, gossip, pornography, commerce and advertising. Its original goals like meaningful communication and knowledge sharing have become a marginal subset when looking at the cold facts of usage.

Then also the World Wide Web is a Woman but nevertheless we're all surfing her. Places like the Genius forum are insignificant flees on the virtual dog, leaching her wealth of possibilities. Is it different from life in society as lived by some of its members?

It seems then a matter of using or getting used, often resulting in a form of addiction. Nobody seems really considering detaching or logging off. And so everyone follows Diogenes into the whorehouse.

Thanks Dan for your thoughtful response and to others here for their excellent posts. The heart and soul of the internet is in forums like these that are now being complemented by audio and video. The rest is economic and cultural fluff IMO.

Dan Rowden wrote:I think this only speaks to part of the story. One area where I disagree with Rich to some extent in in his notion of the significance biology plays. It's very important, no doubt, but it's a bit of a cop-out to emphasise it too much.

Agreed, but I don't think Rich and I emphasize biology that much.

The reason hardly any man speaks critically about and against feminism is because it's hard to criticise Mom and it's hard to be critical of one of the most idealised concepts that exists in your own mind and which informs almost all your actions, goals and beliefs.

Might that not have biological roots?

Woman is ubiquitous; to speak out about it in a critical fashion is to take a stand against society itself. That's not an easy thing to do. It means questioning everything. One cannot meaningfully question and critically analyze feminism without looking into the nature of humanity in every sense. It is a quintessentially philosophical venture.

Bingo! Too bad philosophy doesn't have the power over human minds in this respect that religion has eh? Speaking of that, good job on the interview with Mathew Slick. I listened to it last nite as well as the Buddhist thing.

Sure, people can tinker around the edges with regard to specific socio-political issues, legal, social justice and economic matters etc, but it's just tinkering in the end; it doesn't produce any deeper understanding.

"Understanding" may set the stage, but it's only "belief" that will carry the day on this matter. Do you see me setting up here Dan? Yes, only God can help us with this issue. Your whistling in the wind with reason. I know that you and most others won't agree. Only time will tell.

My take on you guys being comedians actually came from the Randi interview. There was some snickering in the background, well deserved BTW, and a certain joyous absurdity in your responding to him. It was subtle and on reflection I knew you weren't REAL comedians, but just bright guys who enjoy the absurdities that emerge in intellectual discourse and with some of the individuals participating. Randi sounded like a Methodist minister for crissakes and here he is head skeptic. You and Dave are a great team. You really should try to market this whole thing.

Also, it's the proper English dryness of humor combined with the rascally and masculinely direct nature of you Aussies that's a kick, at least for us Yanks.

My problem with Randi was over the autism intervention called "Facilitated Communication" (FC). I produced a book, "QIM Tunes", using the method in the early Nineties and have been an advocate for that and autism on the net since '96.

Someone mentioned here the literature on this subject going back 100-200 years. It goes back farther than that and one of our men's movement guys put up and excellent site with links to much of it. The site goes up and down for some reason, probably financial know anti-feminists, but I found it on the "internet archive". Most of the links work but some are dead. It's called "The Men's Tribune" and it's here:

I was wondering Dan why the "transcript" function isn't working. You said some things on that podcast that blew me away and when I went over it and took notes on my voice recorder, the damn recorder didn't work.

I'll say this again. Dan Rowden has NOT read my book and therefore a statement he made like: "on a deeper psychological, spiritual and philosophical level he (Zubaty) still has a lot to discover and clarify" is patronizing and pathetic.

He doesn't know that, or have any basis for saying it, than his own patronizing attitude. Moreover I happen to know what makes an exciting audio interview and he doesn't, that's why I bang on the socio-political stuff.

Read the book! There's more psychological and spiritual stuff in there than Dan could imagine by himself in a hundred years.

I have not made ad hominem atttacks on anyone in this forum until they attacked me first, like David.... but this is unacceptable.

You wanna disagree with one of my statements go ahead. To put me down generically as being less evolved than you, only reveals your philosophical immaturity.

richzubaty wrote:I'll say this again. Dan Rowden has NOT read my book and therefore a statement he made like: "on a deeper psychological, spiritual and philosophical level he (Zubaty) still has a lot to discover and clarify" is patronizing and pathetic.

He's just offering what appears to be a reasonable judgment. It's not meant to patronize you, and it certainly isn't pathetic.

richzubaty wrote:He doesn't know that, or have any basis for saying it, than his own patronizing attitude. Moreover I happen to know what makes an exciting audio interview and he doesn't, that's why I bang on the socio-political stuff.

To tell you the truth I thought the socio-political stuff was a bit on the boring side. I was most interested when Sue went straight to the heart of "Woman". Not that you didn't have some interesting things to say though. In fact I would be glad to hear you back on the show again some time.

richzubaty wrote:Read the book! There's more psychological and spiritual stuff in there than Dan could imagine by himself in a hundred years.

Why don't you just discuss some of it on here instead of repeatedly telling us to read your book.

richzubaty wrote:I have not made ad hominem atttacks on anyone in this forum until they attacked me first, like David.... but this is unacceptable.

You wanna disagree with one of my statements go ahead. To put me down generically as being less evolved than you, only reveals your philosophical immaturity.

Nobody is attacking you, but some of us are going to be extremely critical of you. I wouldn't want it any other way if I was in your shoes.

Nick Treklis wrote:Why don't you just discuss some of it on here instead of repeatedly telling us to read your book.

If someone post questions that are most clearly answered in Kevin or David's books, the links go to their books rather than Kevin and David re-writing on the forum what they already wrote in their books.

richzubaty wrote:I have not made ad hominem atttacks on anyone in this forum until they attacked me first, like David.... but this is unacceptable.

You wanna disagree with one of my statements go ahead.

It sounds to me like he's willing to debate his points, but so far gets the impression that all he's left debating are ad hominems.

Nick Treklis wrote:Nobody is attacking you, but some of us are going to be extremely critical of you.

That's his point. Why do people have to be critical of him personally? If you have a critique, critique the idea, not the person with the idea, and specifically state why you think the idea is off base.

I'll put some questions out there after I get done with the book - might be another week.

Nick Treklis wrote:Nobody is attacking you, but some of us are going to be extremely critical of you.

That's his point. Why do people have to be critical of him personally? If you have a critique, critique the idea, not the person with the idea, and specifically state why you think the idea is off base.

I'll put some questions out there after I get done with the book - might be another week.

I'll say this again. Dan Rowden has NOT read my book and therefore a statement he made like: "on a deeper psychological, spiritual and philosophical level he (Zubaty) still has a lot to discover and clarify" is patronizing and pathetic.

Actually I have and some of your ideas are simply wrong or askew. Plus, you might recall that you had never heard of the idea of society as Woman before. This is actually a quintessentially important piece of understanding for this issue.

He doesn't know that, or have any basis for saying it, than his own patronizing attitude. Moreover I happen to know what makes an exciting audio interview and he doesn't, that's why I bang on the socio-political stuff.

You don't like being disagreed with, do you? :) My point is that we can't know our socio-political views and activities and arguments are appropriate without that deeper understanding. I know you think you possess that, but I disagree with aspects of it. We can nut those differences out over time.

Read the book! There's more psychological and spiritual stuff in there than Dan could imagine by himself in a hundred years.

There's really nothing in your book I haven't seen before, in one form or another, actually. Much of it I like and think is sound, some of it I don't.

You wanna disagree with one of my statements go ahead. To put me down generically as being less evolved than you, only reveals your philosophical immaturity.

No, it reveals that I think you're errant on some points, that's all (I think the whole men's movement is, despite my general advocation of it). I said you still have a lot of discover and clarify. As I said, the fact that you haven't come across the idea of society as Woman demonstrates this for me. I did not put you down generally at all.

Thanks Dan for your thoughtful response and to others here for their excellent posts. The heart and soul of the internet is in forums like these that are now being complemented by audio and video. The rest is economic and cultural fluff IMO.

Can't argue with the "fluff" observation. But then the Internet reflects society as a whole so it's to be expected I guess.

Tom wrote:

Dan wrote:I think this only speaks to part of the story. One area where I disagree with Rich to some extent in in his notion of the significance biology plays. It's very important, no doubt, but it's a bit of a cop-out to emphasise it too much.

Agreed, but I don't think Rich and I emphasize biology that much.

My concern is that in the context of certain points where biology may be stressed over psychology, people might adopt a somewhat fatalistic view of things. The biological component is always important to acknowledge and understand, but where there's also a psychological dimension I prefer to emphasise that as that's where people can make a difference. If you empahsise the bilogical people will think, "Oh well, it's in my genes so there's not much I can do to change it; we'll just have to accept that this is how things are". So I suppose my point is about emphasis, more specifically. It's also interesting, as an aside, to think about how each gender tends to react and focus with respect to an issue that has both a biological and psychological dimension. I would posit that men tend to move towards the mental in their focus and women the physical.

Tom wrote:

Dan wrote:The reason hardly any man speaks critically about and against feminism is because it's hard to criticise Mom and it's hard to be critical of one of the most idealised concepts that exists in your own mind and which informs almost all your actions, goals and beliefs.

Might that not have biological roots?

Sure, but then I imagine we could say that about any mental state whatsoever. I'm more interested in the mental manifestations of these biological roots, as we can deal with them more readily. With respect to Woman, the psychology of the idealised is of paramount importance. All our inculcated notions of innate female virtue spring from that. It drives society as much if not more so than physiological forces. This is because "Woman" is much more than tits and arse and a comforting whisper in a weary ear.

Tom wrote:

Dan wrote:Woman is ubiquitous; to speak out about it in a critical fashion is to take a stand against society itself. That's not an easy thing to do. It means questioning everything. One cannot meaningfully question and critically analyze feminism without looking into the nature of humanity in every sense. It is a quintessentially philosophical venture.

Bingo! Too bad philosophy doesn't have the power over human minds in this respect that religion has eh?

Well, yeah, but that's because we don't value truth and reason to anywhere near the degree we like to claim for ourselves. One of the good things about what Rich is doing is that unlike most Men's Movement type guys I've encountered he makes the effort to build a genuine system of thought incorporating all aspects of human experience. In short, he adopts a more roundly philosophical approach than most. This sets him apart for me. I might not think he's got it right in some respects, but I'm happy to state that the approach is what is needed.

Tom wrote:

Dan wrote:Sure, people can tinker around the edges with regard to specific socio-political issues, legal, social justice and economic matters etc, but it's just tinkering in the end; it doesn't produce any deeper understanding.

"Understanding" may set the stage, but it's only "belief" that will carry the day on this matter.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "belief" here, but I would say understanding makes belief redundant.

Tom wrote:Do you see me setting up here Dan? Yes, only God can help us with this issue. Your whistling in the wind with reason. I know that you and most others won't agree. Only time will tell.

Well, I certainly can't agree with that (but add that it's contingent on my interpretation being accurate). God (Truth) matters to the degree that we want our views and actions to be grounded in reality. But without reason, understanding cannot exist and without understand you have action in a vacuum of consciousness. i.e. you have Woman.

I was wondering Dan why the "transcript" function isn't working. You said some things on that podcast that blew me away and when I went over it and took notes on my voice recorder, the damn recorder didn't work.

Not sure what you mean here. The "transcript" links go to actual hand written transcripts of the shows. Some of them have not been completed at this time. It's the one job no-one wants as we don't have any actual transcription software to do the job. We literally listen and type.

Tom waving to Sue saying, "I love you and want to read your book!"

So does she!

You guys might also be interested in reading these transcripts from the radio series the Hour of Judgement we did back in '95:

I'll say this again. Dan Rowden has NOT read my book and therefore a statement he made like: "on a deeper psychological, spiritual and philosophical level he (Zubaty) still has a lot to discover and clarify" is patronizing and pathetic.

Actually I have and some of your ideas are simply wrong or askew.

Would you please quote a few, or even just one, of those wrong or askew ideas specifically, please, so we can get down to debating the issue.

Nick Treklis wrote:Nobody is attacking you, but some of us are going to be extremely critical of you.

That's his point. Why do people have to be critical of him personally? If you have a critique, critique the idea, not the person with the idea, and specifically state why you think the idea is off base.

I'll put some questions out there after I get done with the book - might be another week.

One of the most reasoned comments I've read lately.

Bobby.N

Thank you. Funny how on this, of all threads, one of the most reasoned comments would come from a female.

A funny anecdote, and I'm sure that though it is infinitely simple, it will go over everyone's head (I just speak that way for effect, it's a writerly thing).

Wednesday, in the Vaishnava calander, is Radhastami, the 'appearance day' (birthday) of Radha, the consort of Krishna. Krishna in this metaphysical system, is similar in symbolism to Shiva, and as everyone knows Shiva, a male force (consciousness), is all about his relationship to 'Shakti' (potency), which is quintetessentially female. Shakti is the power behind the entire manifestation, shakti is what makes everything function, through shakti everything comes into manifestation. There is nothing that can happen in any of the worlds without shakti. God is revealed to consciousness through shakti.

The male and the female are part and parcel of the creation. In the myths of Krishna and Radha, Krishna is eternally attracted to Radha, and Radha is eternally attracted to Krishna, but especially Radha is said to control Krishna through her devotion, her love, but also through her attractiveness.

The mythos and the metaphysic implies a deep interconnectedness, an inseparability, and I have to admit that I split a gut when I hear men speaking as if they are divorcing themselves of what is female, not only in the sense of 'stopping loving women' (completely and ridiculously absurd, and what a drag!) but in divorcing themselves from what is female in themselves (psychologically destructive, and the stuff of deranged boy-scouts on mental crack)(that also for writerly effect).

I guess is you have become so pushed over by women, so surrendered, so 'supplicant', that there has to be a reaction away from that, as a corrective. But it does seem to me that there is a sort of ideal 'inner union' that is the key to well being, and not this separate yourself, think deep philosophical thoughts, cease all relationship with women, 'come on boys, let's join together in this and shift the paradigm of the world!'

Like it or not, you are part and parcel of the 'mater'(ial) creation, and 'the only way out is through'. There is (I think) a real hubris in some of the assertions and assumptions I hear from men on this list, this 'breaking' this 'ceasing' and this denigration of the feminine, and woman/women.

A far stronger position, I think, is to genuinely know yourself, and to know the different parts of yourself. Psychologically, I think this is far more wholesome.

There is a grandiose tone here, like you think you are actually going to change substantial things in this world through your refusals? Women have been enticing men since time began, and will go on enticing men long after you have disappeared from the scene. It is part of the game here. I think you just have to become stronger than the game. If women are lunar and men are solar, the sun just has to get brighter and the moon responds, inevitably.

I don't know, maybe I am not grasping your doctines, but I did want to say that.

The definition of â€˜Masculinityâ€™ or â€˜Femininityâ€™ (of oneself) should come from the respective gender one belongs to. A woman cannot â€˜teachâ€™ a boy to become a man, anymore than a man can teach a girl to become a woman.

This isn't 100% accurate. Both genders, as parents, help develop conventional role and behavior psychology in their progeny. Dads help make their daughters what they are in very important ways. Fathers are essentially the first males that young girls "flirt" with; i.e. learn to develop and test what are known as "feminine wiles". Fathers act as a catalyst for this development by deferring to it almost totally. Mothers push their male children into a more independent, self-sufficient and less emotional mode of existing by treating them differently than their female children. I won't list the various ways this happens here, but I can if you'd like. As a quick example, just the other day a woman was walking in front of me with her two children - one boy, one girl, of similar ages. The entire time she held the girl's hand. The boy walked alone. This is symbolic of those parenting/nurturing differences.

(ie. Richâ€™s statement of men not teaching boys anymore holds true to a very large degree today.).

It's a mixture of teaching and setting an example, don't you think? This is what male nurturing is, really: setting an example to follow. Female nurturing binds progeny to Woman; male nurturing does this too in some respects, but it also acts to show young men what do, namely: act in the world. As things stand those actions are almost entirely about sublimating Woman-driven desires, but the principle is sound even if the values underlying it aren't.

When men listen to women to define their worth (ie. The 90â€™s, when women said they wanted a â€˜Sensitive New Age Guyâ€™.) â€“ men obliged, and women complained even more.

It's surely one of the greatest lessons for a man to learn: that the more you give women the more they'll want and complain about what they lack. This is partly because unconscious desire cannot be satiated and also partly because having is always seen in relation to not-having. There's also the point that the New Age Guy was a passing fad that didn't speak to what really want in a man, which is beyond her kin anyway. Men can never be what a woman really wants because what she wants (in any moment) is always what she doesn't have.

Talking â€˜philosophicallyâ€™ about ideas is fine â€“ but a grasp of reality and the way each sex tends to choose to live is paramount.

A philosophical level understanding of the nature of the feminine and masculine dimensions of mind, and how these things manifest and create society is utterly necessary to comprehending these matters - and therefore to changing things in any meaningful, non-trivial way.

Saying that â€˜Women are equal to menâ€™ is just politeness. Itâ€™s a concession to politically-correct rules. It has little to do with reason.

That's true enough, but notions of social equality aren't necessarily built on that little fable. The dumb ones are, however.

Men (as opposed to males) generally have a secure notion of who they are. Men who base their thinking (rather than feeling) without the approval of the â€˜womanâ€™ are being more honest with themselves as far as I can see.

I'm not sure I'd see it in terms of honesty so much as sanity. Men who live through the approval of Woman are being honest in their own way; it's what they are. The problem is what they are is other than entirely sane (sanity here meaning consciousness attuned to what is real).

Feminism is a spolit rich child. It acts tough, then hides behind its vagina.

Much of the time, yes; it also hides behind a willing dad.

One of the most important points in the podcast that summed up my shared thinking is the notion of RESPONSIBILITY. The reason Iâ€™m so tired of feminists and our socio-political culture of â€˜womanâ€™ is that is avoids the notion of responsibility when it comes to women.

Females are not raised into a sense of responsibility. They are more coddled and protected than the male. This is a very bad psychological foundation for what are the natural logical consequences of the feminist movement's demand that women play a greater role in all facets of culture. Women confuse male readiness to accept the burden of responsibility with the petty desire for power (of course, sometimes it is just that). A lot of women, especially in the corporate and business world are finding out the hard way how things really work. Those who make it to the top on the basis of merit know that the so-called glass ceiling is not a gender barrier but a values and willingness barrier. But, hell, everything is about them so take no notice of what I just said....

If women want to â€˜changeâ€™ their beliefs â€“ fine. Be what you want. But I wish theyâ€™d stop complaining that the world doesnâ€™t change with them.

That would be nice, but here's the point: the world is Woman and therefore what happens is for the benefit of Woman. It's perfectly natural and reasonable, given this fact, that women would expect the world to mould itself to their desires and needs. If not, what the hell is the world doing? Men should ask themselves this very question: what the hell is the world doing? And why?

Some men have had enough, in part, because women has stepped outside their ideational framework of what a virtuous woman is. Modern women are quite raw in their femaleness. Scary, huh?

The observation, to me, is that men are increasingly tired of the modern belligerent woman. When one weighs up the benefits of a relationship with a feminist (read: most women), and the negatives â€“ itâ€™s not that surprising that we have more bachelors and â€˜never marriedâ€™ men than EVER before in recorded history.

I agree it's unsurprising, but I disagree to some extent about whether it's a bad thing. This is how women really are. The modern woman is less adulterated by male ideation - and her desire to live up to it - than in the past. It may prove very instructive for men to step back and take a long hard look.

Relationships today are really one-sided. If a male wants to be with a woman (by-&-large) it MUST be on her terms, otherwise he knows he really hasnâ€™t much of a chance.

Is it her terms or the terms of magazine editors? I'm not sure most women have conscious terms they could articulate from their own minds. It's just the unconscious flow of desires informed by sundry social forces and influences. This is one of the reasons that women can never be content or genuinely happy: they have no idea what might make them so.

Sheâ€™s the one to say â€˜yesâ€™ or â€˜noâ€™. She has the final say.

Indeed. The basic reason that relationship, courtship and sexual dynamics happen "on her terms" is that men are the proactive ones; women are the object of the activity. That automatically puts women in the position of "yes and no" power. Feminists rail against the supposed "objectification" of women, but the truth is there is power in being an object of desire. Women know this well, instinctively if not consciously.

Thatâ€™s another reason for men agreeing with feminist ideas. â€œYes dearâ€ seems to be the prevailing â€˜Memeâ€™ of males today. They want keep the women in their lives happy. They want the women around them to continue to say â€˜yesâ€™ to them.

There's other reasons too. Part of why feminist demands get met is actually quite flattering to men, even if feminists never admit it - men have a strong, logical instinct for social justice; men created jurisprudence. Feminists exploit this natural predilection. Combine that with the natural male protector response and men are basically screwed (or, screwing themselves). Then there's the ideational aspect - again! Women are naturally virtuous, moral and harmless creatures, so sayeth the ideal; if they complain about some state of affairs or some lack in their lives, men eventually break down and just accept that there must actually be something wrong, even if no part of their intellectual and rational selves can discern it. When your little daughter cries a river, do you stop to think about whether her tears are justified or do you just spontaneously move to passify her. Every dad knows the answer to that one.

The concept of feminism and the modern woman is so â€˜self-centeredâ€™ (at the exclusion of all else) that its understandable to see the bitterness in the air.

It's a perfectly natural manifestation of the Society as Woman principle. Society is already Woman centered. Even "patriarchy" is part of this Woman centeredness. Feminism's greatest problem is its fractured and nebulous nature. It isn't really anything in particular.

The modern â€˜womanâ€™ has modeled herself into something which men are finding increasingly 1-dimensional and childish. What man could seriously look at one of these (as Sue put it) â€˜childrenâ€™, and see a responsible mother?

Woman-coloured glasses - put them on and everything is clear!

The â€˜meâ€™ focus to most of womenâ€™s thinking (feeling?) is pronounced in the sciences where women are almost non-existent. Women cannot see much worth in things if it is not DIRECTLY related to an immediate (usually material) gain.

Women tend to be thin on the ground in the "pure" sciences and thick on the ground in the Humanities. There's a reason for that. It ain't just coincidence.

A woman can see no point in mathematics, unless sheâ€™s part of the equation.

Yes, but the question is: why? The answer to that question is very important to all these issues we're discussing.

The pronouncements that modern women voice that men are â€˜afraidâ€™ a STRONG, INDEPENDENT woman is laughable.

I don't think it is, actually. Men are afraid, though not in the precise way feminists think they are. Men are afraid of losing their ideal, their source of comfort and validation; men are afraid of losing a significant part of who they are mentally. i.e. men fear women who don't need them. This fear is the source of so much trouble it's not funny.

Men are not â€˜afraidâ€™. Weâ€™re â€˜tiredâ€™.

Some men seem to be, most don't. The trick is to wake that "most" up to why they should be tired - even if only of their own pathetic bullshit.

Tired of bending over backwards to give women everything they want, just so we might be worthy of them, but never getting there. And as time passes, it seems like the approval is a hoax.

It's always been a hoax. It's never had any substance whatever. Lift the veil of Maya regarding Woman. That should be one of our greatest exigencies.

(A quote from an author I forget): â€œOf what use is independence to a woman, if in the end she is all alone?â€

That's David Quinn, and it's a very telling observation.

A man will never be free (to be a man) until he no longer cares what women think of him.

Yes. He must break the yoke of approval, but to do that he needs to understand his need of it.

Skipair wrote: Yet they take this extremely uncharacteristic role anyway because men actually/finally gave it the O.K. Men created this fuck up, and the ball remains in their court to change it.

You have to be kidding. How much responsibility do women have to avoid?

You can only avoid something if you recognise its existence. The question of how much responsibility we should burden women/feminists with is contingent on the answer to the question of how much consciousness we can ascribe to their actions and ideas. The answer to that question will also inform the strategy for change that we adopt. One has to be consistent on this count. We can't just arbitrarily ascribe conscious motives to women's behaviour one moment and deny it the next just to suit our position. This is one of the things we discussed in the podcast - the idea of women's seemingly insatiable greed/need for stuff. I argue that whilst it looks outwardly like greed, that's not really the most accurate or reasonable way to characterise the mentality. Greed is defined as excessive desire. What women express is more endless than excessive. A woman's desires cannot really be thought of as excessive because desire is literally what she is; she can't really have an excess of herself (no gratuitous obesity jokes, please!). She doesn't simply have desires; she is desire, manifest through a bag of blood and bones and curvy bits. I am, of course, characterising a near to completely feminine women here; adjust your vision as you see fit regarding individual women (or men for that matter). The degree to which we can sensibly ascribe responsibility to women rests on the question of the degree to which a woman can see herself for what she is. The answer to that is for each person to discover for themselves. I can assert my way to the end of the galaxy and back and it won't make any difference if an individual doesn't discover these things for themselves.

How many concessions? How many 'batting' of the eyelids when they revert to their girly selves will it take to realise that they need to grow up. That they need to start being the type of level-headed female that men would consider as wives & mothers.

Um, hang on! Historically these girly selves are precisely the women men have chosen to be wives and mothers. When are men going to grow up? When are men going to encourage and push women to be other than the girly selves men so adore? When are men going to reward women - by way of not punishing them - for doing this? And I'm not talking about the superficialities of looks but all the deeper aspects of Woman. In short, when are men going to stop caring that women are women? Do we even know what that means, I wonder.

While men need to take their initial share of responsibility for giving feminists the 'inch', that they made a 'mile' (read: "Maybe if I give her this she'll be happy" - or "yes dear") - I can't see feminism as men's fuckup.

I can, in part. We gave feminists what they wanted for the most part. How is that not our responsibility? If a parent gives a child unfettered access to the Internet simply because they cry for it and they hook up with some pedophile, who is to blame for that? Who is to blame when you hand justice over to someone who is offering you injustice? Men really do have a problem with the "no" word! Seems they can neither hear it nor say it!

Men agreed to the initial (well-meaning) concept of 'choice' & an 'equal playing field' (ie. everyone gets to try) - but men certainly didn't initially agree to things like affirmative action, quotas, and the total feminisation of our culture, while making masculinity a dirty word.

Yes they did. For the most part it is men who have instituted such things, albeit driven by a totally misguided (exploited) sense of fairness.

I think the only sensible (& productive) way men can contribute to this mess is to walk away and/or voice their ideas on these issues when they arise instead of saying "Yes Dear".

That I agree with totally. Look at the issues on their merits; forget who it is that is bringing them to the table.

I think the ball is definitely in women's court now.

What do you expect them to do with it?

Men are seen as oafs, fools, rapists and buffoons in the popular culture/media. Any opinion other than capitulation to feminist memes gets one labelled as a misogynist.

Bobby.N wrote: (ie. Richâ€™s statement of men not teaching boys anymore holds true to a very large degree today.).

It's a mixture of teaching and setting an example, don't you think?

Most certainly. Children absord quite a bit.Observing mom & dad shapes them significantly.

Dan Rowden wrote:

Bobby.N wrote:Saying that â€˜Women are equal to menâ€™ is just politeness. Itâ€™s a concession to politically-correct rules. It has little to do with reason.

That's true enough, but notions of social equality aren't necessarily built on that little fable. The dumb ones are, however.

It's no coincidence that feminists piggy-backed themselves off the emancipation of the black man in America in the late 60s to pronounce, "Hey, we're oppressed too! We DEMAND emancipation from being slaves to men!"

If I were black - Id be insulted that women equated being bored in the kitchen to 100s (1000s?) of years of slavery.

Dan Rowden wrote:...A lot of women, especially in the corporate and business world are finding out the hard way how things really work. Those who make it to the top on the basis of merit know that the so-called glass ceiling is not a gender barrier but a values and willingness barrier. But, hell, everything is about them so take no notice of what I just said....

Aside from the obvious observation that women aren't chasing the dangerous jobs, or jobs away from metropolitan areas, while they complain about wage-parity - that they ARE chasing those jobs that most resemble the homelife they so willingly now abhore?(ie. Air-conditioned, comfortable, indoors, protected from elements, etc).

Dan Rowden wrote:...It's perfectly natural and reasonable, given this fact, that women would expect the world to mold itself to their desires and needs. If not, what the hell is the world doing? Men should ask themselves this very question: what the hell is the world doing? And why?

I think men, historically, did a better job of this before.Men have just lost sight of the cost to themselves as men.

Dan Rowden wrote:...The modern woman is less adulterated by male ideation - and her desire to live up to it - than in the past. It may prove very instructive for men to step back and take a long hard look.

A fair call, though what a cost to us all.

Bobby.N wrote:Relationships today are really one-sided. If a male wants to be with a woman (by-&-large) it MUST be on her terms, otherwise he knows he really hasnâ€™t much of a chance.

Dan Rowden wrote:Is it her terms or the terms of magazine editors? I'm not sure most women have conscious terms they could articulate from their own minds. It's just the unconscious flow of desires informed by sundry social forces and influences. This is one of the reasons that women can never be content or genuinely happy: they have no idea what might make them so.

The word 'resposibility' still comes to mind. But, I do realise i have to remember I'm talking about 'Woman' here.

Dan Rowden wrote:Men are afraid, though not in the precise way feminists think they are. Men are afraid of losing their ideal, their source of comfort and validation; men are afraid of losing a significant part of who they are mentally. i.e. men fear women who don't need them. This fear is the source of so much trouble it's not funny.

But i don't think it's initially a 'fear'.Not innately from 'man' anyway.

When the wrong woman (in my estimation) 'foists' herself upon me, it's not "fear", but rather sound judgment that makes the decision. I realise you probably mean many mens fear of the 'woman'-fed notion that "oh God, what if I'm ALONE?!" - but if a man reaches a point (as many do - myself included) - where women's directives play little part in their choices - then 'fear' (of not being alone) doesnt come into it at all any longer.

Dan Rowden wrote:

Tired of bending over backwards to give women everything they want, just so we might be worthy of them, but never getting there. And as time passes, it seems like the approval is a hoax.

It's always been a hoax. It's never had any substance whatever. Lift the veil of Maya regarding Woman. That should be one of our greatest exigencies.

Dan Rowden wrote:Funny, I consider your philosophy to one of pure evil and the source of almost all violence, hatred and suffering through history.

Hmm, so a belief in peace, love and affirmation leads to violence, hatred and suffering? I'm going to have a hard time swallowing that one.

Dan Rowden wrote:This is because your philosophy entails building egotistical security on a pack of lies.

Oh, perhaps you've forgotten the (lost) thread where I explained that I value honesty. I suppose that my honesty and your truth are two mutually exclusive affairs.

Dan Rowden wrote:I'll explain this in more detail soon...

I've seen similar (unfulfilled) promises before, so I'm not holding my breath, but I'm willing to be (un)pleasantly(?) surprised.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:If someone has dedicated their life to some cause early on, then this is a sign that they probably have an incredibly poorly developed mind.

It could also be a sign that they have a strong set of values. There is much that can be decided on the basis of a value-rationality feedback loop, the mechanism of which can be learnt quite early in life. Experience also plays a large part in developing values, so it's not only about cloistering yourself away to learn reason.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:The key point is that one is stronger spiritually if they are able to live without being attached to women. Men use women to create a sense of self-esteem, identity, an object of comfort, pleasure and so on. So â€˜Sheâ€™ prevents him from achieving full-blown enlightenment.

Enlightenment in its Buddhist form has to do with the elimination of suffering. Is a largely trouble-free relationship with a woman - the opposite of suffering - so inconceivable to you?

Ryan Rudolph wrote:It really depends on if you want to go all the way with your conscious individuality or not. The spiritual life is so demanding that is only reserved for the insanely courageous, as so long as you are bound to â€˜womanâ€™ you are still of the world.

The yearning for women is as far as I can tell an innate one. One need not bind oneself to women in order to reap the rewards of their company and intimacy. Who is to say that there is not a spiritual path that coincides with female relationships? There are certainly those who advocate one, such as those who practice Tantra.

The yearning for women is as far as I can tell an innate one. One need not bind oneself to women in order to reap the rewards of their company and intimacy. Who is to say that there is not a spiritual path that coincides with female relationships?

Because spiritual strength is derived though an asexual and solitary existence, and that type of life is totally inconceivable for women. All their desires are totally counterintuitive to spirituality; all she can do to a man is drag him down to hell with her.

It doesnâ€™t sound like you have a lot of experience with women Laird, especially according to the lofty ideal of the perfect woman that you have in your mind. As long as you value this fantasy, and gain a lot of comfort and security from it, then there is no getting through to you, perhaps you should try searching for the ethical woman yourself, and you will discover that she is a myth. For instance: Sue is the only ethical woman I know of, but she is pretty much a man anyway. Her psyche is totally masculine. Ironically, the only ethical women are quite asexual by nature, so when a man actually seeks her and finds her with the ideal of companionship in mind, he realizes that there is nothing comforting she can give him anyway....All she can say is, "stay alone jackass" ...,very funny stuff.